Rai v. Rai
- Clarke
- 1:21-cv-11145
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rai v. Rai, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a status letter by July 20, 2023, while leaving prior deadlines in effect.
The parties and their counsel in Rai v. Rai were required to follow the existing schedule and, unless the case had already ended, file the ordered joint status letter by July 20, 2023.
What happened
Rai v. Rai was reassigned to United States District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The court stated that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless it ordered otherwise.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by July 20, 2023. The letter must update the court about the case’s issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible mediation, and estimated trial length.
Judge Clarke also explained the procedures for requesting extensions or postponements. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute; it gave case-management instructions after reassignment.
The detailed version
- Rai v. Rai · No. 1:21-cv-11145
- Clarke
- July 7, 2023
What the Order Did
The case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The court directed that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court later ordered otherwise. The court also directed counsel to become familiar with Judge Clarke’s individual rules and practices.
Required Joint Letter
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than July 20, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of certain entities could be placed in an appendix outside the page limit.
The letter must address:
- the names and current contact information of counsel; - the nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including the basis for diversity citizenship if applicable; - existing deadlines and previously scheduled conferences; - outstanding motions; - pending appeals; - discovery already completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of prior settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; - whether the parties have considered mediation or another alternative dispute-resolution process; - the estimated trial length; and - any other information that might help move the case toward settlement or trial.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the letter or appear, provided proof of termination was filed before the deadline.
Extensions and Postponements
The court stated that requests to extend deadlines or postpone conferences must be made through a letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The request must identify the original and requested new dates, prior requests, reasons for the request, the opposing party’s position, and any upcoming court appearance when applicable. Unless the court notified counsel that a conference had been postponed, the conference would occur as scheduled.
Disposition and Classification
This was a procedural case-management order following reassignment. The court did not resolve the underlying claims or defenses and did not rule on any merits motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.